Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1) Please clarify meaning of 'party'. On the simplistic presumption that it means "editors whose conduct will be reviewed", I believe it should include dormant and less-involved editors as well, viz., six dormant (Kitia, Kletetschka, StanPrimmer, Bart Versieck, NealIRC, and Cjeales), five less-involved (The Blade of the Northern Lights, O Fenian, Maxim, Carcharoth, and Sbharris per next link), and, prospectively, any editors newly identified with COI or undue influence during the evidence week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#COI list (current permalink; total 29 or possibly more). A clarification would also be acceptable that indicates that the editors just-listed are considered nonparties but with the same standard of review as parties; if that is the case, I believe the party list should be shorter, by dropping BrownHairedGirl, Griswaldo, and TML to "less-involved nonparty" status (15 parties and 14+ nonparties). Either way I appreciate the appropriate clarification. JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
2) Please clarify validity of self-identification. I have already gotten three revisions deleted by boldly inserting what I thought was fair use of identification by themselves of editors' real-life personas, but despite requests no clerk has clarified proper fair use (Georgewilliamherbert started to). Because conflict of interest is an important component and the validity of using self-ID will affect the direction of the evidence, I believe it appropriate to have a stipulation that certain parties have self-identified. a) Can someone review this evidence of self-identification and verify that this meets a prima facie standard of presentability? b) If it does, could someone boldly place the data in an appropriate place in this case with an appropriate disclaimer (perhaps even the party list itself, although that is complicated if the request 1 response above involves a nonparty list also)? If parts of it do not, could someone have ArbCom email me to discuss how to hide all the (probably large number of) revisions that would need hiding? c) There is one identification case I judged as a trivial non-self-identification, which I have not continued to insert, but which was part remains only partially hidden after several requests. Could someone either verify its triviality or perform the additional revision hiding? I will be happy to clarify this point further if necessary. d) If it is judged that all disclosures were either self-identification or trivial, it would also appropriate for the record to unhide the three hidden revisions. e) What would be a streamlined process for review and insertion of any new discoveries of self-identification discovered during this case, as the present process seems decentralized and ineffective, as already explained? JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
3) Please provide requested guidance. My email to ArbCom of 10 November, requesting particular private guidance on two points, was acknowledged but now needs substantive response prior to the conclusion of the evidence phase. I will post here when this guidance has been provided if there is no public comment. JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
4) Please comment on the advisability of unblocking Kitia. Per Kitia's talkpage, Kitia appears to be a dormant editor without significant prospect of disruption if unblocked. Kitia requested accessibility to ArbCom mediation on this issue specifically and repeatedly between Dec 2007 and Apr 2008 (note edit summary), and declined the potential alternative of participating by email during block. I see no reason why a temporary unblock and offer to participate would be counterproductive. JJB 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
5) Please comment on protocols for in absentia trials. With evidence week occurring over a major American holiday, which was an unanticipated result of my filing time, there is significant possibility that Ryoung122 (last edit 05:13, 14 November 2010), whom I consider the "primary defendant", would miss an opportunity to comment. I fully expected that Ryoung122 would have significant input. It would be appropriate to discuss how in absentia trials normally proceed, and what safeguards are made for Ryoung122's potential later participation. JJB 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6) Please comment on civility vs. advocacy. I intend that all contributors should be free to present a civil but very biased case; it is typical in adversarial proceedings to abandon the encyclopedic, neutral tone, in favor of advocacy language that argues heavily in favor of the conclusions desired, with mild rhetoric even being considered a sine qua non. While having heightened respect for process, the process itself is used to compare the points of view each with their best advocate, and even "writing for the enemy" is used adversarially rather than neutrally. To use an example close at hand, the offensive comment "I Initially was inclined to view this as Randy and Sword wielding skeletons theory" with link would be permitted as a statement of reaction to an event under review, although the statement "I am still convinced that is still a substantial factor" would be excluded as a present-tense violation of civility to a current interaction partner and thus as stepping from advocacy into (the outermost circle of) process abuse, although this could be fixed by amendment to "that was a substantial factor". There is slight interrelation between this request and request 5 above. While hard-and-fast rules need not be defined, I invite general feedback on this method of proceeding. JJB 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
7) Parties, please comment, for the purpose of unambiguous reference to external parties and sources, on whether the following facts and identifications about them can be stipulated or unstipulated by you, in whole or in part (I will notify all current commenters next). These stipulations refer only to external parties and sources, as given by appropriate Internet sources. The primary purpose for their listing and their relevance to the case is to facilitate discussion of self-identified relationships between internal Wikipedia editors and the external organizations and sources named, which may constitute conflicts of interest. That is, these stipulations are intended as no different in neutrality from statements in mainspace, although making no warrant of their notability.
8) I request that an arbitrator discuss matters with me openly rather than risk certain third-party criticisms such as nontransparency. Thank you. The remaining full text of this present request appears elsewhere on this page, and I apologize for not remembering to place the request here at first. JJB 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
9) I don't know if this is the right place to mention it, but there is an exchange on my talk page between Ryoung122 and myself, that will be of interest to parties and participants. Happy for someone to copy it over if they feel that appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
10) I request that, due to BLP, a clerk immediately delete the sentence Ryoung122 just added, searchable as beginning "JJBulten even stated". (This section was accidentally deleted by Itsmejudith due to edit conflict and restored clerically by me prior to my reading it fully.) The objectionable sentence crosses the line to push a hot button. What I actually stated, and what Ryoung122 seems to misremember, was: "Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: ... Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113." In context, this means that the articles listing only verified cases from these two continents should have been deleted (they were) because they were biased against unverified cases from these two continents, particularly against unverified cases under 113. Ryoung122's novel interpretation of my comment is a severe violation of WP:BLPTALK and requires immediate third-party response, please. JJB 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Copying to User talk:NuclearWarfare. JJB 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
1)
JJBulten often cites "policy" which is in fact nothing more than his own previous insertion of material. JJBulten discourteously fails to mention changes, instead claiming that "silence=acceptance" when others are not made aware of his sneaky editing. One can easily find examples on this ArbCom page of him self-quoting his own insertions, then claiming silence=acceptance.
JJBulten has dedicated an inordinate amount of time, to the point of obsession, to turn the Wikipedia material on supercentenarians into a battleground between the mainstream POV and his religious fanaticism POV, much like insisting that schools that teach evolution must also teach creationism. Such POV-pushing is highly inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia policies on NPOV and RS.
Articles such as longevity myths have been degraded, and others have been deleted (even if appropriate) after a concerted campaign of deletion by JJBulten that included canvassing, recruitment, posting the same message on multiple AFD's, and attempting to intimidate other editors (for example, making fun of Brendan's age). JJBulten does NOT have Wikipedia's best interest in mind, but is instead pushing a radical right agenda. I say this as someone who has leaned right in politics.
Given the amount of material to pore over, and the amount of damage JJBulten has already done, I propose a temporary blocking of further editing by JJB, pending final outcome of the arbitration.Ryoung122 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2)
3)
4)
15) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. Case/Climate change
16) Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutely never acceptable without indisputable evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participants should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with the Arbitration Committee. Case/MZMcBride 2
21) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
32) Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Index/Boilerplates
39) When all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community. Case/Climate change
1) The case primarily concerns editing on human longevity and related articles, and, in particular, a series of disputes among a number of editors concerning appropriate content and sourcing for these articles. Several editors have admitted conflicts of interest in the topic area.
3) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned as the result of separate community discussion: Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324#User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions, Ryoung122 was blocked indefinitely by Maxim (talk · contribs), who cited "Attempting to harass other users: Disruptive editing, pushing POV, repeatatly inserting unverifiable information".
That's why CNN, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the AP, and other sources continue to use me as a major source for their news articles on supercentenarians.
In fact, the core of the 2007 dispute was a false witch-hunt, much of which was overturned gradually. For example, the Marie Bremont article was resurrected, and the GRG was determined to be reliable.
Now, however, we have a POV, self-described paranoid delusional editor, JJBulten, attempting to push his religious perfectionist POV editing, including the idea that all ages in the Bible are correct, because the Bible says so. If anything is a walled garden here, it is JJBulten's religious walled garden. All this started because someone had the audacity to label an article on Noah a "longevity myth". That's what all this is about: protecting religious mythology from modern rational thought.Ryoung122 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have relied excessively on sources whose reliability was, at a minimum, legitimately disputed under the reliable sources policy; edited disruptively by repeatedly and stridently insisting that particular points of view, supported by the works of particular e-groups (including GRG), be incorporated in the articles; persisted in aggressively demanding that POVs be incorporated long after it became clear that there was a strong consensus against it; and/or repeatedly added material not directly supported by the sources provided, or with no sources provided at all.
4.1) Ryoung122 proposed at 01:42 on 6 Feb, with the edit summary "removed bias words", deleting the words "single-purpose" and "legitimately" from proposal 4 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Finally, it is clear from outside sources that SOME of the AFD decisions were incorrect, mainly due to the anti-supercentenarian cabal, a group of editors who "team up" to delete material, even when objective, third-party analysis finds that it is properly sourced.Ryoung122 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have focused a substantial portion of their editing in the longevity topic area on biographical articles about living persons in a fashion suggesting that they do not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.
5.1) Ryoung122 proposed at 01:43 on 6 Feb changing the word "single-purpose" to "other" in proposal 5 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have made a series of increasingly uncivil comments and cast unsupported aspersions of bias and wrongdoing against fellow editors with whom they were in editorial disagreement, as well as against members of the relevant WikiProject, and have engaged in personal attacks, including via edit summaries.
6.1) Ryoung122 proposed at 01:44 on 6 Feb, with the edit summary "too many to cite", adding the bullet points "JJBulten" and "DavidinDC" prior to the first extant bullet point in proposal 6 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6.2) David in DC proposed at 03:55 on 6 Feb, with the edit summary "That's Not My Name", changing "DavidinDC" to "David in DC" in Ryoung122's proposal 6.1 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
7) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have adopted a battleground approach, characterized by repeated assumptions of bad faith in interactions with other editors; disruption to illustrate a point; tag-team editing unduly influenced by other bloc editors; and/or gaming the system.
8) Ryoung122 has used the personal information or private communications of others in a manner that could reasonably be understood as intimidation.[99][100][101][102][103][104]
10) By reason of the foregoing, it is apparent that Ryoung122 is in fundamental disagreement with basic principles on which the collaborative Wikipedia model is founded, and that both he and the project would be best served if he published his writings elsewhere, irrespective of their quality or merits.
11) The following editors have effectively been operating as single-purpose and/or conflicted accounts in the disputed topic area. These editors have placed undue weight on selected research by GRG to promote a point of view. In pursuit of their agenda, they have disruptively removed material, edited biographical details about living persons in a fashion suggesting such articles were not always approached with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view, tag-teamed with users, gamed the system, treated the disputed topic area as a battleground, imported an "us vs. them" mentality, and/or repeatedly directed incivility and personal attacks upon those who disagree with them, both in posts and in edit summaries, as noted below.
Okay. I’m not going to bore you-all with a point-by-point commentary of the diffs above, but a few are worth citing in better format. For example, the diffs that label me as “personal attack” are where I point out that two administrators have been abusing their tools. That story is best read here in all its gory glory, rather than diffs with bad markup: [134] Basically back in 2007 a user named Stan Primmer was blocked mistakenly as a sock of Ryoung122 by an admin, and when I pointed out that he was a different person, he was INDEF reblocked permanently as a “meatpuppet,” by another admin. This went beyond error, because it persisted after error was pointed out on the admin’s TALK page (the admin’s response was to erase it). I believe I earned the accusation of battleground approach by saying [135] “Meatpuppetry is not a blockable offense. What part of this don’t you understand?” Later, this admin had the grace to apologize; the other admin never did. The episode provoked a rebuke by user:Carcharoth about blocking for causes unnamed in blocklogs (that’s about as much rebuke as you’ll ever see from Carcharoth, BTW). The experience caused user:StanPrimmer to leave Wikipedia, a bitten newbie, and his userpage was later deleted by JzG. One of Ryoung122 supporters bites the dust! But don’t call it “gaming the system”—that’s only for his supporters.
Before I run out of space (that's a joke), I should make some comments on the suggestion that the verified lists of the oldest-old are some kind of “walled garden” tended only by Ryoung122, the mad doctor L. Stephen Coles, his nefarious GRG (of which I think I'm still a member!), and their house organ Rejuvenation Research (to which I have not yet contributed, alas); and that the whole thing is stinkier and more pseudoscientific than, say homeopathy (and the National Journal of Homeopathy, too). However, such is not the case. There does exist an international database of supercentenarians here [136]. It is The International Database on Longevity, which is hosted at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany. The host of international contributers to the database can be found here: [137]. Peer reviewed publications in demographic monographs using this data, and one published in Experimental Gerontology (not controversial academically in any way) may be found here: [138]. Now, it is true that Robert Young is one of the database contributors, but he’s one of 24 scientists in 12 countries. If this institute’s data are good enough for international demographic publications and a publication on the oldest-old in a top gerontology journal, it should be reliable and notable enough for Wikipedia.
My comment on supercentenarians themselves must be limited here to the observation that their numbers decrease with age with quite predictable regularity (if you include a bump-up in mortality risk from 50% a year to 70% a year, starting at age 114), so long as only those who are well-verified by modern methods (census data “catching” them at early ages, and good birth certificates) are used. Using these tools we can see that the probability of a person making it to 122 is about the same as that of a person growing to a height of 8 feet 11 inches (see Robert Wadlow). And an age of 123 years would correspond to 9 feet tall—just a bit more, but never seen yet. An age of 130, however, would correspond to perhaps 10 feet tall—again small in percent but a huge difference in probability, given the observed distribution. Extraordinary evidence of the existence of such a person would need to be required.
Now, would somebody like to clarify for me what all the arguing is about? A lot of work seems to have been expended on this page. What are we all angry about? What is it, that we'd like to do, or prove? Or write about verifiably? Why don’t I see all this much bad blood (for example) in the pages on limits for human height, or weight, or (for that matter) anything else that is human? SBHarris 07:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr Harris,
I’ll tell you what all the arguing is about. There are two schools of thought here.
One camp believes in the scientific study of human longevity; the other in a theological or ideological view of human longevity.
There is the Bible and there is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Both are important in the human story.
But the editors of Wikipedia have to make a choice. Wikipedia either becomes a cutting-edge online encyclopaedia for the 21st Century based on the scientific principles of observable events, reproducible experimentation and the recording of data; or a body of work contained in the stricture of theology or ideology. The choice is stark. — Cam46136 Cam46136 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
But look, why should this be a problem? The article on rainbows has a section on rainbows in mythology which explains that it's the bow of god put in the sky as a sign he won't drown the world again. Since rain comes from holes in the vault of the sky, letting down the waters above. Why not some section of the same type in the longevity articles, where we can put Methuselah, and Noah, too. SBHarris 07:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's absolutely possible, and necessary to treat the mythology properly. This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on multiple occasions. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
COMMENT: The policy was not properly applied by BrownHairedGirl on Nov. 12-15, 2007 when I complained about a newbie being bitten, see WP:BITE. At that times, the WP:SOCK policy simply emphasized that most "meatpuppets" are new editors who likely do not know what they doing, and not to WP:BITE them. Obviously indefinitely blocking them with that in mind would be against policy and was. The reason it does not appear to be so now, is that user:JzG simply decided (withough any discussion or consensus), to significantly change the meatpuppet policy. He did that with several edits on Nov. 24 [139]. These edits sequentially removed the warning about biting newbies, thus making it apparently okay to bite this class of newbies. And in the same series of edits, JzG added the idea that remedies against a sockpuppet can apply to meatpuppets, based on an old arbcom decission. That gives the option of indefinite blockade of a newbie, without saying, in any obvious way, that this is a new way to hurt newbies that is very much against previous policy, and certainly that is against the spirit of WP:BITE.The specific details of these findings, which relate to evidence presented 3 weeks ago (simply search my /Evidence section for "Sbharris"), are: (1) and (3) In 2007 Sbharris attacked BrownHairedGirl and Maxim, charging admin abuse (comparing their tactics to a Taser), because BrownHairedGirl mistook meatpuppet StanPrimmer as a sockpuppet (meat is agreed by all); he also charged "attack" on the notability of Coles and made an unsourced "assumption" of recruiting among admins tantamount to canvassing; this was, further, disruptive due to its length, its unquestioning advocacy for Ryoung122, its strawman characterization of BrownHairedGirl's view of "the badness", and its novel view that meatpuppetry is not blockable (perhaps interpreted as saying that, since meatpuppetry is not always blocked, it should not be blocked here), when the policy currently states that meat may be subject to sock remedies, which policy was properly applied by BrownHairedGirl.
I note that there was no discussion of whether or not an arbcom decision can or should reset WP policy. There was also no discussion of what is explicitly being authorized here with these changes, as new "rules of engagement." JzG simply decided that an arbcom decission should reset policy (after all, he was one of the 6 arbitrators in that decission), and he added a reference to it. And that is how the policy came to read as it does today, without anyone exploring the consequences, or the conflict with WP:BITE.
I note this as a clever way to game a system: if one admin does something against WP policy, some other admin may simply rewrite that the policy, two weeks later, without discussion. And under the idea of ex post facto laws, now it's later referred to as "properly applied." You may quote it here, three years later, and then suggest that my reading of policy is "novel." No, it is not novel. It was policy at the time not to bite newbie editors in this way, but was changed very soon after (and no doubt because of my complaint, unless you believe in large coincidences). And (as noted) changed without the debate it deserves. I very much doubt if most experienced administrators would agree with the idea that indefinitely blocking newbie editors who are drawn into a Wikipedia debate, as "meatpuppets," without even a warning, is actually acceptable practice. But, since a discussion of this point has never actually been held, I can't say for sure. I suppose it's time for an RfC. If anyone cares. Which they probably do not, as newbies are a dime a dozen on WP. SBHarris 09:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
2) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Topic-ban per Blade, below, should definitely be considered. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3) Ryoung122 shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined by the Arbitration Committee, effective on the completion of the ban imposed in Remedy 2. Ryoung122 is prohibited from returning to Wikipedia until the terms of this probation have been set, regardless of whether any other ban remains in place.
Should Ryoung122 wish to return to editing, Ryoung122 may contact the Arbitration Committee via email once six months have elapsed from the date of this decision. The Committee will then open a discussion regarding the terms of probation; this discussion may include the involvement of the community at an appropriate venue. Should Ryoung122 reject the terms offered by the Committee, Ryoung122 will be limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
9) DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from longevity, per Remedy 5.
11) NickOrnstein (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from longevity, per Remedy 5.
17) All users are reminded that, as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable-source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically an article about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).
I would be happy to hear anybody answer the question, then. "Self-published" in the context of RS, clearly refers to the idea of one person publishing data they themselves collected. If, however, you have a group of people publishing material, that's called an "organization." Organizations publish material considered to be "reliable" by WP standards all the time. This includes all newspapers and news sources, the Guinness Book of World Records (a self-published source if ever there was one) and numerous sports score repositories which call themselves "official" just because they can. For example: [140] for Texas high school athletic scores. Does it meet criteria for WP:RS and WP:V? You tell me. Where is the academic-review check on sports scores?
The bottom line is that there's doesn't exist very much published information out there that means the criterion of independent academic peer review. To pretend that WP demands that, and that GRG material can't be used because it doesn't meet that standard, would be for WP to shoot itself in the foot pretty badly. You can't maintain those standards for most of what's in WP. So I suggest you don't go there. That's never what WP:V was meant to demand. SBHarris 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes if a local newspaper reports a whopper, we may have to cite them with tongue in cheek, such as when the Dogpatch Gazette reports that Joey Fisher caught a 50 lb rainbow trout (although it has not been recognized by IGFA). Or that Granny Goodwin just died at the age of 132 (although this has not been investigated by the GRG). Ordinarily such reports do not bring forth vitriolic fights on WP where somebody decides to wonder what the heck does this walled garden "IGFA" think it is, and what gives them the right to question and thereby perhaps impugn the claims of little Joey and his fish, or Granny's wonderful family, who respectively certainly ought to know how how big that fish was, and how old Granny was. But that's what we have, here. The Dogpatch Gazette gets a free pass on WP's RS/V "standards" and somebody who doesn't like some other watchdog organization, perhaps one more widely known, is deriding the skeptical secondary recordkeepers as being "self-published." Well, unfortunately, they're no more self-published than any other "data-dump" or "data-source" (Tweedledee/Tweedledum) of this type.
The amount of argumentation we'd have here, over this particular issue, is just not justified by it. For this, I believe the responsiblity must reside with Mr. Bulten. It would be better to go back to specific claims about specific fish, and (perhaps) whether anybody really cares about 50 lb trout. Or ought to care. Wikipedia's answer is the last kind of question, is that if somebody does care enough to keep careful records, then WP should care enough to summarize them. Quite like Pokémon, or keeping track of how many times a statue of a goat is burned by vandals. SBHarris 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the project for other purposes—such as advocacy, propaganda, and the furtherance of philosophical, ideological or religious disputes—is prohibited.
2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
3) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudo-scientific or non-scientific viewpoints.
4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
5) Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.
Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic.
6) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
7) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.
8) While good intentions do not justify misconduct, they may serve as a mitigating factor when sanctions are considered. A violation of policy committed in an honest—if misguided—attempt to advance Wikipedia's goals is more easily forgiven than an identical violation committed as part of an attempt to undermine the project.
1) The dispute revolves around the existence and content of articles on longevity in general, and around the suitability of certain sources and the alleged conflicts of interest of certain editors in particular.
2) The degree to which the materials produced by the Gerontology Research Group and affiliated groups may or may not meet Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, and the degree to which any individual longevity-related topic may or may not meet Wikipedia's policies on notability, are questions of content which lie outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee.
3) Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics.
It's a lot easier to "simplify" issues into "us against them," but often that's not the case. But I'm going to simplify a few issues here, and where I stand on them:
1. science vs. religion (Ryoung122 vs JJB)
I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-censorship. Wikipedia has room enough to express both the religious and scientific views on the Virgin birth of Jesus as well as parthenogenesis. But insisting that each article must exist in its own WALLED GARDEN is the problem here. The "real" "Walled Garden" of the JohnJBulten vs. Ryoung122 dispute started when someone dared label the article on Noah a "longevity myth". It's OK to call Greek gods myth, but not Biblical material? Is this 2011 or are we still throwing Galileo under the bus?
Don't believe me? Ask JohnJBulten is he believes that Noah lived to 950. Ask John J Bulten if he tried to replace scientific terms with original research (i.e., change "longevity myth" to "longevity tradition", sourced to quack websites or not sourced at all)
2. GRG, OHB, web hosting (Ryoung122 vs David in DC)
In fact, it would probably help the GRG to have Wikipedia delete their lists, since a lot of kids turn to the Wikipedia lists instead of the GRG lists. But my goal has always been science, not personal interest, not the GRG. Science. So if 15-year-olds want to make a list of supercentenarians that conform to modern scientific (demographic) principles of age verification, there's nothing wrong with that, so long as the list reflects outside sources, not OR (original research). Yet periodically, editors such as David in DC have i-voted on AFD pages that claim that articles on supercentenarians have NO SOURCES when in fact they did. David in DC has attacked the reliability of the GRG, using the "self-published" putdown, even though sources such as the New York Times, Tokyo Times, Wall Street Journal, the AP, and Guinness World Records use it. The GRG includes more than 60 Ph.D's and more than 200 persons with a Master's degree or higher, including persons such as Leonard Hayflick, Jay Olshanksy, etc. In fact, it's probably the world's highest concentration of bio-gerontologists. I agree the GRG site could use some stylistic improvement, but that's beside the point. The GRG lists are used by Guinness, by Rejuvenation Research, and by the mainstream media. So to claim that it's not a "reliable source" is little more than wiki-lawyering. The Wikipedia page on "self-published" sources gives the example of "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." But that's not the case here. The GRG has been featured as the topic, for example, of a front-page Wall Street Journal article, and has long-term sufficient standing in the mainstream media to qualify as far more than a source that "anyone" could put online.
As for MOSFLAG, MOSBOLD, and other issues: there are tangential, stylistic issues, mostly addressed by editors other than myself. Yet I must note that Wikipedia's "one size fits all" policies are often counterproductive to Wikipedia's purpose. Aside from IAR, there are reasons to have exceptions to policies which have been developed and changed over time. The use of flags may be prohibited in individual biographies, but make sense in group listings. In fact, might I say this: there's no problem in using flags for sports figures, is there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_association_football_goal_scorers
Wow, listing a flag next to a sports player's name! What an outrage!
I am sure that we can get the other issues worked out, but first there is JJB's personal vendetta against me and anyone who ever opposed his longevity editing (CanadaJack, for example).
I am so sure that JJB is the problem that I'd be willing to accept a mutual topic ban: that is, if you agree to topic-ban JJB from longevity articles for, say, one year, I'll stay clear as well. Because I'm certain that in the long run, this is about more than just me or him; it's about whether Wikipedia is going to allow the secular scientific approach to supercentenarians and longevity be reflected objectively here, or are we going to be protecting the religious walled garden that says that "Christian" material is off-limits from science (but Greek material, go ahead).
With JJBulten, the problem goes beyond his viewpoint, it goes to his methods of operation, which include: --voting for his own AFD's --mass-nominating AFD's with the same text --self-proclaiming himself free on conflict in this ArbCom, while naming others as conflicted (third-party persons should be doing that) --making lists of proposed punishments (third-party admins should be doing that) --trying to stir up trouble by citing long-closed discussions from 3+ years ago --trying to stir up trouble by misrepresenting material of others (for example, I helped facilitate a compromise in the edit count dispute) --self-citing his own policy editing changes, claiming "silence is consent," and failing to courtesy-notify others or first establish consensus --making blacklists of all who disagree with him --launching what he called the Bolding War --trying to re-open the MOSFLAG dispute regarding supercentenarians --fighting against consensus by calling consensus a "walled garden" --mislabelling the policy edits of others as "attacks" --making "friends" lists, adding persons without their permission, and using these lists for intimidating others (ask Nick Ornstein or Brendanology) --putting down others on account of age
Perhaps the most-disturbing thing about JJBulten, the self-proclaimed paranoid psychotic, is that he "pulls back" to objectivity when opposed, but then starts new issues. I note he opened this ArbCom WHEN I AGREED TO TAKE A BREAK FROM WIKIPEDIA, IN MID-NOVEMBER. WHY RE-IGNITE AN ISSUE WHEN I TRIED TO STAND BACK?
So, I'm all for fairness. I have no intention of leaving Wikipedia forever, but I should note that most of the so-called "Walled Garden" of longevity wasn't built by me. I didn't add flags, I didn't add bolding, I didn't create top-100 lists. I did suggest that individual biographies of persons 113+ that were covered in substantial sources would make good human-interest articles. The University of Mississippi thought that Bettie Wilson was someone whose story should be preserved for posterity. I did too.
I could perhaps use a bit of mentoring on "how to be nice" and how to consensus-build. But one thing we can all agree on: we don't have time for these interminable ArbCom disputes. I was busy FINISHING MY SECOND MASTER'S AND OFF-LIMITS when JJBulten decided to launch this ArbCom, after promising to take a break. I am reminded what my stepmother said, "People take niceness for weakness." So instead of taking a break, JJBulten took advantage by launching a massive ArbCom. I didn't have time to respond to all of the allegations. In the past few weeks, I finished a journal article, three encyclopedia entries, took trips to Florida and Spain, and updated the Guinness world's oldest person title. I didn't have time to respond to the meticulous, obsessional accusations, but I'd be willing to bet that every individual one, if you post to my talk page, has a rational explanation. So, for more information, post a query to my talk page, and I'll try to answer it.
One more comment: the impersonation of JJBulten on the 110 Club was apparently by LongevityDude (a 17-year-old kid). The admin of the 110 Club traced the comments to Louisiana, it was not me, I had no knowledge of who was doing that, and when I quoted the comments in January I thought they were being made by JJB. LongevityDude had already been banned from the 110 Club and it may have been done as a prank. That issue is long-closed. So, let's not confuse the many edits by teens (Nick Ornstein, Brendanology, LongevityDude) with issues of science or the GRG. And as for COI, all the kids were on Wikipedia first, finding the 110 Club later online (it shows up in Google searches). The 110 Club is not run by me, I'm an advisor to it, but it's a fan club for persons interested in media-reported supercentenarians.
Ryoung122 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The biggest
ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration; * Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.
Thanks, JJB 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So, now Itsmejudith is taking credit? If so, that's another issue: why did Itsmejudith not inform me?Ryoung122 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
4) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([141], [142], [143]); sustained edit-warring ([144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([155], [156], [157], [158], [159]); inappropriate canvassing ([160]); and sockpuppetry ([161], [162]).
5) John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including sustained edit-warring ([163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]); misuse of edit summaries ([169]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([170], [171]); repeated deletion nominations that could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to overwhelm through sheer volume ([172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191]); and attempts to unduly advance a fringe point of view ([192], [193], [194]).
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to longevity, broadly interpreted.
The implementation of these sanctions is suspended to allow editors working in this area an opportunity to voluntarily improve their conduct and the state of the articles. The Committee will convene a review of the area three months after the conclusion of the case to determine whether the sanctions should be rescinded; unless the Committee determines otherwise as a consequence of this review, discretionary sanctions will go into effect three months and two weeks following the conclusion of this case.
2) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
This implementation of this ban is suspended, provided that Ryoung122 agrees to undergo a mentorship under an experienced Wikipedia editor, who will assist him in improving his conduct to better comply with Wikipedia policies and community norms. The mentor must be approved by the Committee prior to the commencement of the mentorship. The ban will be rescinded upon the satisfactory completion of a six-month mentorship period.
If Ryoung122 fails to find a suitable mentor within four weeks of the conclusion of this case, or fails to complete the mentorship period to the satisfaction of his mentor and the Committee, then the aforementioned ban will go into effect immediately.
When I started editing on Wikipedia, even prior to the incorporation of the Ryoung122 identity, Wikipedia was more like Citizendium, where a few "experts" were asked to write articles on topics. Many of those articles were written by Louis Epstein and myself. These included articles on myself and Louis Epstein. Much of this had to do with the Mary Ramsey Wood article, where several very persistent editors insisted that she was "120", even though my census research found her to be 96 or 98 (depending on the 1880 or 1900 census match). The argument then became whether "experts" could add their own research to Wikipedia. Later, I discovered that the Mary Ramsey Wood case was already debunked (disproven) in 1939 by Walter Bowermann. Thus, I was right, even if the arguments over sourcing made a mess of things. Since the 2007 ArbCom raised COI issues regarding my position in the GRG, I have refrained from adding the GRG as sources to articles. The current dispute, rather, dates to 2009 and is one of religious POV vs. scientific POV. My 2005 essay "longevity myths" was based on prior research done by others, but not collated into one source. The Wikipedia article "longevity myths" actually dates prior to that, as it was created by Louis Epstein. My 2005 essay was published as a chapter in my book and my national student-award-winning thesis. To argue that it is not a reliable source is missing the point. The real point is that, since the age verification field was established by William Thoms in the 1870s, when he noticed a discrepancy between the ages claimed in folklore and the maximum ages existing in life insurance records, that it became apparent that the vast majority of claims to ages above 115 were false. Even for the 1980-2009 period, 99% of all claims in the U.S. Social Security Death Index were false, and scientists are in remarkable unanimity that the maximum scientifically observed human lifespan was 122. Even so, I was willing to conceded that age claims in the 123-130 range might just be possible. It was I that added a "longevity claims" compromise, so why are those like JJBulten out there insisting that to label someone aged 950 as a "longevity myth" is POV and offensive to religion? (One could also argue about the Flood covering the entire Earth and getting all the animals on the Ark). JJBulten's edits had the effect of degrading article quality and scaring off others. I note that DerbyNZ is a neutral, third-party editor who is not associated with the WOP or myself but JJBulten pushed him out as well, and also renamed the "longevity myths" category and almost single-handedly overturned scientifically-sourced consensus with his own original-research. The irony is that many Christian fundamentalists attempted to close the gap between Biblical and scientifically-validated ages by coming up with lots of rationalizations such as the vapor canopy theory. The irony is that I am a Christian and have tended to be rightward in political viewpoint, and my own thesis and book carefully respected the Christian fundamentalist viewpoints, offering them as the apologists presented them. Nonetheless, I recognized it was unscientific and, moreover, in violation of Wikipedia's policies on NPOV to give benefit to Christian mythology on age over that of other religions (such as Hindu, Babylonian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.). In fact, it is not too much to say that wherever reliable systems of birth registration have not been in place for some time, the human need to believe ages greater than fact is universal. We see longevity myths such as Thomas Parr exist in the UK in the 1600s, but since compulsory birth registration began in 1837, no one in the UK has even claimed an age greater than 115. Likewise, Sweden saw age claims as high as "147" in the early 1700s, but since 1749, when 100% of the population was required to register births, no one in Sweden has even claimed an age older than 113. But the narrative on longevity myths was about more than the age claim; it was about the human need to believe them because it served to assuage the human mind of that deep dark notion on the back of everyone's mind: that we are all going to die, and is there an afterlife for us? Believing that someone off in a remote village is "150" is comforting to someone aged 50 and having a mid-life crisis. Thus, the discussion of the mythology of longevity abutted sociology. Gerontology is, of course, and interdisciplinary perspective. I should know since I have a Master of Arts in Gerontology degree and a certificate in gerontology. Much of this material is, in fact, published in books, some of which were published before I was associated with them. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/ The name Kirill here is just a coincidence. I only suggested I would agree to a mutual topic ban (assuming the same is applied to JJB) as to make a WP:Point, to see what would happen if I and JJB were not editing these articles directly. As DerbyNZ pointed out, JJB attempted to overturn consensus by threatening other editors (such as DerbyNZ, CanadaJack, Brendanology, Nick Ornstein, etc.). Yet his own way of putting things allows a "method to this madness." He would constantly claim, for example, that "silence is consent" when he failed to inform others of changes he made, or to make edits after citing his own policy changes slipped in. When it became clear that JJB's editing was against consensus, he then launched this end-around approach to clear any editor with alleged affliation (read: interest) with articles on supercentenarians. JJB, against the 2007 arb-com suggestion to merge supercentenarian biographies for borderline-notable persons into "list of (Nation X) format," went around deleting the biographies (even though they were sourced). While some of my charges may seem outlandish or uncivil, in virtually every case a closer inspection of edit histories bears out that I was telling the truth. Some are obvious; JJB has, for example, refused to pronounce his own opinion on whether Noah lived to 950. His personal opinion is not the issue, however. The point was, he was trying to force his opinion as "consensus." The second issue, that with David in DC, again seems on closer inspection to be something that requires David in DC, not myself, to change course. I never advocated that simply being listed on a GRG list conferred notability. Instead, the argument was that being on a GRG list meant that the case was sourced as "validated" according to an outside reliable source, which meets WP:V. Again, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. No one knows for certain who the world's oldest person is, but outside reliable sources deem those who have applied for the title and whose evidence has been deemed passing official muster as "notable." This is, of course, a construction which predates my existence. Guinness World Records started in 1955, and even before that, their research was based on work by Bowermann (1939), T.E. Young (1905), and William Thoms (1879). Thus, I have been an arguer for following tradition, not establishing a new one here. It should also be noted that my "longevity myths" essay pre-dated my promotion to "Senior Consultant for Gerontology" for Guinness World Records (which dates to November 23, 2005) although prior to that, I also contributed to Guinness. The bottom line is: 1. Yes, I could be more civil. But it was JJB who launched "Bolding Wars," tag-teamed AFD's with David in DC, attempted to overturn consensus by intimidating other editors and even adding 15-year-old kids to his list of "friends", when that 15-year-old dared make edits against JJB. From violating 3RR or coming close to it, much of JJB's statements now, including apologies, will only matter if he changes his editing policies in the future. These include: A. Notifying others on the talk page when making edits contrary to consensus B. Not intimidating or threatening other editors, not making long lists of "friends" on Wikipedia, not making edits so fast and destructive that few have time or the patience to counter them. I think, for example, the 9 AFD's on a single day using the same template resulted in some articles (such as Louisa Theirs, Elizabeth Watkins, etc.) that might in fact warrant an article. Louisa Theirs is still recognized, 85 years later, as the first undisputed person to reach the age of 111, and was featured in literature such as that of Walter Bowermann in 1939 and the very first edition of GWR in 1955. C. Not making edits that are "original research" or only cited to "quack" websites (unreliable sites whose purpose is to sell longevity-related substances). D. Recognizing that if he is to make a quasi-legal court on Wikipedia, then he should adhere to principles of ethics, that include not being the judge (since he is an involved party) (why was he denoting who was COI but himself was "free")?, not overwhelming others with reams of material (which is unfair, considering it makes it difficult for others to respond to everything), and not pushing religious-political POV material. JJB has been involved in edit "discussions" regarding abortion, planned parenthood, etc. I don't have the time to investigate further, but it's clear that this is not his only issue on Wikipedia E. Ask a third party when a disagreement with someone else arises F. Don't make frivolous/false charges. The claim that my edit to the Miami weather was controversial is just silly. 2. The long run will judge my perceptions and viewpoints of the situation to be correct, if not the methods. I agree browbeating JJBulten's idiosyncrasies (such as his being a self-described paranoid person) is not helpful, but the irony is that it was my own fear of JJB running off other editors that led me to be assertive in standing up to his "charges." 3. David in DC is a long-time, established editor whose flavor could self-admittedly use adjustment (he gave himself a B- in this dispute; I would say less than that). Accusing the GRG of being biased, self-published, unreliable, etc. is simply his personal opinion not borne out by facts. The fact of the matter is, the GRG has the world's largest concentration of biogerontological minds, and age verification research is just one department of discussion. We find that the GRG (and OHB) material is consistently quoted in the mainstream news media as reliable material. There was ONE death report mistake in the past 9 years, and that was traced to a UK government official, who was thought to be reliable. That's a fairly good track record: over 99.8% correct. No one is saying that the GRG lists establish or confer biographical notability, but they should confer list-ranking notability. Finally, it must be stated that the idea of "Walled Garden" conspiracy here is like accusing the Egyptian protests as controlled by one man. Many/most of the editors here on Wikipedia that are interested in supercentenarians found material in the news or on Wikipedia first, later joining "fan clubs" like the 110 Club, or places to post research results, photos, and news stories (the WOP Group is not a blog, and is not used as one; it is used to post updated material). Sometimes these editors agree; sometimes they disagree. I note that I proposed a very strict, high level of notability for individual supercentenarian biographies: the first test of notability is that the coverage in reliable sources exists outside the local area. Thus, no one made an article on Ruth Bauder Clark, aged 111, of Sarasota. But Onie Ponder, 112, was covered by Time Magazine and other sources. Her notability was not just due to her age but to the amount of coverage in the media (she voted for Obama; she was in great shape and able to talk in interviews, etc). I don't see myself creating any of these articles; I only advocate for keeping articles when "votes to delete" seem to be stacked-deck-unfair and loaded with false charges. Many of the articles for deletion claimed "no sources" when the article had sources. In fact, I note that several Wikipedia editors claimed that my own biography had no sources, when in fact it did: http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm Was this published by me? NO! Was this a "trivial" mention, or a one-event mention (such as a "witness to a fire")?NO! Yet "no sources" exist. Not true, of course, and this is beside the point. The point of the article was that, as an editor on Wikipedia, I attempted to use the Wikipedia policy on self-referenced material from "experts." Yet I see from the Wiki-lawyering that some have commented that I was not an expert, even though it could be argued that I am, in fact, the world's leading expert, and that I am associated with far more groups than the GRG. Rather, it has become easy to use me as the "scapegoat" when much of the alleged Walled-Garden activity was material that I initially opposed. Would it not be better for the GRG if Wikipedia didn't keep lists of living supercentenarians, where the media can copy? Yes. But any Machiavellian thoughts were won over by the usefulness of an article that integrated GRG and OHB material and, pluralistically, included a third section on unvalidated cases. I have been more than fair. Had other Wikipedia editors edited conscientiously and approached the subjects with a little less personal emotion and more objective analysis, there never would have been an ArbCom to begin with. I note that supercentenarian longevity expert Louis Epstein chose to drop out, as his approach was "my way or I'll hit the highway." I, on the other hand, have been repeatedly open to compromise and fairness. Finally, I realize that it has been said that editing Wikipedia is like sausage-making; you don't want to know the process. But I would go further: sausage is made out of poor-quality material, I'd rather have substantive "meat" to begin with. Ryoung122 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
3) John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Many of the rules JJB violated I was following, even if I was not following prior to 2007. You'll not see cites of me self-creating articles or linking them to the GRG, although under the original formulation of Wikipedia, it was ENCOURAGED, not "deprecated," for experts to participate. While sometimes I didn't sign in, or other times I was auto-signed out after a time limit, you won't see me use sockpuppetry to "vote" for or against anything. My belief is that it is easier to be honest than to cheat, and therefore I don't believe in cheating, lying, or the like. In a few cases, what I said could not be sourced, but circumstantial evidence supported the idea that something may have been said, as was evident from JJB's comment to go after the List of European supercentenarians article next, and David in DC's comments that articles such as List of African supercentenarians might be "biased," even though his pushing for article deletion simply means that the Wikipedia coverage leans even more heavily in favor of Europe. In fact, though, that says more about the state of reliable sourcing in 1900 (when European records were often kept, but records in many parts of the world were limited to nobility). In Saudi Arabia, the exact birth of even members of the Saudi royal family is often unsourced for those born in the 1920s and earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_of_Najd
I think I could say more. Anyone who is fence-sitting and wants a clarification about what I did or others did, simply look at the list JJB generated on this ArbCom and how he failed, as usual, to inform those listed that they were being listed.
Note also that User:Kitia was apparently a teenager from Sweden? or somewhere in Nordic Europe, intimidated off Wikipedia in 2007. I wonder how many were intimidated off Wikipedia again in this latest brouhaha.
Ryoung122 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
4) WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.
1) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them using the ((db-author)) or ((db-self)) templates. Nothing in this remedy prevents at any time any other editor from requesting deletion of the subpages via the Miscellany for deletion process nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
There are actually TWO major issues here. For convenience, editorial foes chose to "merge" their disputes in a tag-team. That tag-team was mostly John J Bulten and David in DC.
We have already well-discussed John J Bulten's misactivities, but not enough attention has been directed to David in DC.
Thus, I am putting this below:
When we see edits from David in DC like this:
"If the web-hosting for self-published data is still around in a year, you can draw one conclusion."
David in DC comment to John J Bulten
This is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The Gerontology Research Group has been around longer than Wikipedia has. Wikipedia pages have copied the GRG, it has not been the GRG pushing to have Wikipedia "mirror" it.
David in DC's mis-use of the term "self-published" is, ironically, self-delusional.
I see no reason why the GRG should qualify as a "self-published" source. I, for one, do not "publish" the material. It's not me online "publishing" this material. Dr. Coles publishes it.
Also, the Wikipedia policy on "self-published sources" is in regards to non-notable entities that have failed to establish or attain mainstream community consensus, but are instead materials put up by "fringe" persons.
Checking the GRG material on supercentenarians, the GRG material on supercentenarians is used by Guinness World Records and quoted by the AP, APF, UPI, and major news publications such as the New York Times. We have seen the GRG be featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The problem here is NOT the GRG. The problem here are editors such as David in DC who, in violation of Wikipedia rules and policies, replace reliable sources with their self-appointed, anti-GRG bias to decide for themselves what is or what is not notable. That is the problem. David in DC has literally "voted" for deletion for articles by claiming they are not sourced, even if they were. As usual, most of the time the information in the articles was correct, and the sources are often NOT the GRG. For example, Louisa Thiers:
Newsclippings about and tributes to Louisa K. Thiers (1814-1926), credited as the oldest person to have lived in Wisconsin and the last true daughter of an American Revolutionary War soldier, also are included.
Not only did sources exist that predated the GRG and Wikipedia, but Ms. Thiers has been well-covered in the scientific literature as well as the popular press (indeed, mentioned in the very first edition of Guinness World Records 1955). Yet editors such as David in DC saw fit to delete the article on Louisa Thiers by claiming it was some kind of GRG conspiracy to inform the world about how long verified supercentenarians really live. Oh wait, it's that the purpose of encyclopedia articles on supercentenarians?
Ryoung122 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse him, the GRG data is NOT "self-published," it is NOT "raw data."
If someone sends in an application ("my grandma is 110!") and the GRG reviews the data, saves the records, and publishes the photo, how can that be self-published? The GRG is a non-profit entity that is, in fact, governed by laws such as privacy laws, which means we keep actual documents sent to us by family members private.
I've been concerned, from the beginning, with David in DC's editing, in part because he had a personal third-party dispute with me that had nothing to do with supercentenarians and then he comes on here and starts deleting material, falsely claiming sources don't exist when they do, and using terms such as "raw data," "data dump," "self-published" and worse. In short, David in DC is allowing his personal opinions to get in the way of the facts.
Checking out, for example, this AFD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga
* Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC) * Delete Actually a ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported [1]. But that seems to me like an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. At any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. (Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [2] [3] [4], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As usual, David in DC made false aspersions ("no sources"), then suggested the GRG was not reliable, then suggested that the GRG was biased against non-Western sources. Yet checking the evidence, who helped to delete the articles on African supercentenarians and South American supercentenarians? David in DC and JJBulten. All of this is easy to find on Wikipedia, if one had all the time in the world available to hunt it down.
Ryoung122 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The GRG is NOT "self-published" according to Wikipedia's definitions. It is NOT some "blog" where someone puts their great-grandma on it and declares her the world's oldest person. A third-party family might send in a claim to the GRG, where the evidence must be checked for factual verification (is the document original proof of birth? Is there proof that the person alive today is the person in the record?, etc.). So, your aspersions that the GRG is "self-published" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. To be more blunt: you're wrong.
You also claim that the GRG is not a reliable source, even though it's reliable enough for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Times, etc. Who appointed you self-appointed arbiter, to override outside-source determination of reliability? In short, your edits are therefore contradictory to Wiki policies. Notability is conferred or not conferred by outside sources, NOT your personal opinion of the GRG, OHB, or the like.Ryoung122 22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Detailed analysis of all evidence
|
---|
Analyses below are based on outline numbering and (subpoint organization) at this permalink. My intent is to review all evidence diffs but this may not be completed before case closure. Explanation of terms:
John J. Bulten by JJB[edit]Claims 1.1-3: Ryoung122 committed the widest variety of policy violations, nearly all of which can be considered equal to the reasons for his former indefinite block and/or violations of his agreed conditions for return. Claims 1.4: Like Ryoung122, at least 11 other editors have been stated to have COI in the longevity area, which is not a violation in itself but aggravates other violations. Incidental information: The current list at WT:WOP#COI list names 14 editors, not counting many socks and unidentified SPAs. Claims 1.5: Like Ryoung122, at least 16 other editors, plus 12.144.5.2 and 7 other IPs, committed an endemically undue weighting in favor of Ryoung122 and COI-based sources. Claims 1.6: Like Ryoung122, this same group of editors committed a wide variety of policy violations, often following him and each other in these violations, often after warnings. Claims 1.7: The WP:WOP articles have been widely judged a semiwalled garden, in that many of them abuse encyclopedicity and are supported by ignorance of sourcing policy, abuse of behavioral policy, and failure to report or observe COI standards. Claims 1.8-9: In particular, the use of unreliable sources to report deaths of relatively private living persons is regularly symptomatic of the above problems and endangers the Wikimedia Foundation, with 11 generic cases shown and with the additional Margaret Fish case highlighted in that a self-identified family member alluded on WP to emotional damage caused by these editors' misfeasance to the Fish family (and, perhaps, to the party or parties who made the original error). Analysis: The sorting and labeling of these diffs into particular charges is already essentially complete. I believe it is more appropriate for others to judge the applicability of the diffs to the violations charged. However, I wish to comment on the relationship of this evidence to that of others, and on general indicated trends. First, it is clear that the majority of presenters are in rough consensus, while Longevitydude, Brendanology, and Ryoung122 each take a different tack in presenting charges unsupported by the others (respectively, bad faith by Timneu, violations by John J. Bulten, and violations by Sandstein and David in DC, without speaking of objections against two-post off-Wiki identity "JJB"). These three editors do not present evidence contrary to the consensus charges (charges that primarily speak of violations by COI editors and a walled garden requiring remediation) but attempting to invalidate it by arguing for mitigating factors (provocation, and the invalidity of the consensus view of the policies). That is, the consensus arising from evidence should be clear. ArbCom is primarily tasked with a behavioral analysis of the various violations charged rather than judgments about the applications of policy to content, but the way in which it weighs this balance of violations will indicate the degree to which topic-specific controls are necessary and a forum for wider community input on content remediation is necessary. I point out that general trends include on- and off-Wiki demonstrations of exceedingly wide open meatpuppetry among most COI editors; COI editors maintaining commitments to several purpose statements contrary to WP's purpose (compare the stipulations above); and demonstrated entrenchment, after repeated warnings, in desire to continue violating consensus policy in favor of the off-Wiki version of these policies as was largely enshrined in WP:WOP. (When non-COI editors made recent improvements to bring WP:WOP guidance in line with policy, COI editors simply ignored the guidance edited into this project, of which many of them were members, and continued arguing from the off-Wiki community standards that they had formerly enjoyed propagating freely.) This militates for the argument that all COI editors, as well as the topic, should be placed on significant restrictions to ensure that the off-Wiki antipolicy movement does not continue to infiltrate, and that newly discovered editors, especially SPAs, should be given less than usual tolerance if they appear slow to absorb WP policy, as generally accepted and as specifically developed by a future wider collaboration of non-COI editors. Incidental information: To digressively mention "my story" briefly: In spring 2009, as a longtime policy watcher, I became interested in WP:BLP guidance on parties not proven to be dead by reliable sources; this guidance made what appeared to me an arbitrary cutoff judgment related to Jeanne Calment's age of 122. Without drawing a policy conclusion at the time (my conclusions now appear at User:John J. Bulten/BDP, which is one of many proposals that are on hold during this case), I reviewed WP's coverage of supercentenarians and found it exceedingly wanting. Juvenile and redundant tables, abusing color and bolding, presented unverifiable and often unsourced data in excessively synthetic and novel categories, far beyond what GWR had ever done. I discovered GRG was the primary source for much of this, originally giving it tentative acceptance as a primary source, but then discovering its abysmal E.HTM and other spreadsheets had no editorial control and represented the judgments of one man (Coles) without any formal public standards. (E.g., I have never seen, after diligent search, an unequivocal description of what three documents constitute "validation", meaning that I have no proof that GRG-validation is, or isn't, a relatively arbitrary and "gut" process, which of course calls into question the entire valid/invalid categorization.) At any rate, I introduced myself to WP:WOP on 24 Apr 2009 by stating some concerns with longevity articles that needed addressing (WT:WOP#Talk:Longevity myths); those issues have largely never had a non-COI hearing in 2 years, and over time I despaired of there ever being one. My initial contributions to the topic area, as shown in Itsmejudith's evidence, included adding many scientific and/or reliable sources over time (she noted the first five of these); creating two templates organizing the longevity claims of the Sumerian King List and the Tanakh; and (completed a couple months ago) initiating the eventual removal about 70 unsourced sentences from the "longevity myths" article, all inserted in one 2005 edit set by Ryoung122, reorganizing the article as per GWR and other RS's. However, the amount of invective I have personally faced, often on an edit-by-edit basis, from demonstrably conflicted and antipolicy editors, has been unparalleled by anyone's treatment of anyone else in my WP experience. Thus, it is hoped that a community collaboration on longevity practices will yield a consensus not founded in COI and unencyclopedic manipulation, and I have always stood by such consensus when it has arisen in this field. (Problems identified in my 24 Apr 2009 post but never settled due to antipolicy interference: (1) undue weight; (2) unencyclopedic policy violation; (3) mistitling of "longevity myths" contrary to WP:RNPOV, as first challenged in 2004 (the content of which has never been called "longevity myths" in reliable sources); (4) arbitrary and unequal inclusion criteria in that article and other articles "verified" and "unverified"; (5) general stylistic messiness; (6) sourcing failures; (7) POV failures; (8) creation of OR lists that do not appear in reliable sources and constitute novel presentations of data; (9) arbitrary, unsourced age cutoffs, such as "131y0d" between the "claims" and "myths" articles and several others; (10) datedness in the inherent structure of many articles that requires them to be manually updated almost daily (partly addressed by my BDP proposal above, partly by other proposals). An unconflicted community discussion would reach consensus on remediating these flaws.) Conclusion: After reviewing similar ArbCom cases, I will be likely to propose an ArbCom ban for Ryoung122, a variety of blocks and restrictions for several other editors, topic-area remedies, and a collaborative forum for establishing WP consensus about longevity-based inclusion criteria, and any other remedies which may reasonably prevent the evidenced violations and disruptions from recurring. JJB 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Timneu22[edit]Claims 2.1: Longevitydude engages in bad-faith editing, hounding (continued after warning, apparent reference link), WP:POINT AFD edits (continued after warning; "happening recently" permalink, "no history" permalink), inappropriate edit summary, and "unwanted" talk (only possible reference link). Analysis: Restoring the permalink to Longevitydude's history above indicates there were two potential POINT edits, AFDs on "Security and Development" and "Geoffrey Farmer", and further review suggests the repeat after warning was an AFD on "23 Minutes in Hell". The Farmer edit summary aligns precisely with Sumbuddi's "good advice". I believe this supports the charges of bad-faith editing (i.e., hounding repeatedly, POINT repeatedly) and inappropriate summary. The "unwanted" talk seems unsupported due to lack of evidence of warning Longevitydude. However, it appears Timneu22 was overzealous in the statement of the charges, leading to technical inaccuracies like "any of my AFDs", "no history at all". Conclusion in next section. JJB 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Longevitydude[edit]Claims 3.1: Timneu22's claims (bad-faith editing, hounding, POINT) are false. Timneu assumes bad faith (continued after warning), accuses Longevitydude (and apparently Sumbuddi), exaggerates charges. Longevitydude self-identifies strong commitment to GRG's and WOP's purposes (cf. stipulations) and strong support for Young as source. An unnamed editor (possibly Timneu22) was warned for incivility, but Ryoung122 is civil. Claims 3.2: Timneu22 (apparently) inappropriately involved Sumbuddi. Longevitydude refactors 3.1 to say Timneu22's claims are only partly true. Longevitydude repeats support for GRG, WOP, Young. Analysis: Longevitydude appears to confess to a lesser version of the charges, I believe consistently with my analysis of Timneu22. I'd say Longevitydude apparently started with the defense that he was providing his true vote in each case, then abandoned that defense recognizing that the article matches were too coincidental and/or contrary to hounding policy. I believe the charges of bad-faith editing (i.e., only the exaggerations I cite above) would stand, although Timneu22 was otherwise largely correct, and thus the consideration of repeated bad faith and malicious accusation would not stand; Longevitydude's counting "other members" as accused seems also an exaggeration, reading more into Timneu22's allusion to Sumbuddi than he intended. Longevitydude's appeal to the rightness of GRG, WOP, Young and Ryoung122 appears to be defensive, though it is problematic for the larger picture. Conclusion 2-3: Ordinary boilover from prior tensions and unresolved ANI, which did not recur. Both editors backed down from larger-than-life first impressions and grew thereby. JJB 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) David in DC[edit]
Claims 4.1 (including implications drawn from David in DC's indirect statements): (1) WOP has endemically trumped GNG and RS and recruited on WP. WOP "morphed itself into" WP:WOP, which contradicted WP's purpose. (2) As symptoms of this, Longevitydude affirmed without evidence that WOP is the best source and took offense when David in DC removed Longevitydude's other source (moved to talk, reference link); Longevitydude did not comment at talk as requested but escalated it directly to AFD ("how dare anyone"). (3) Longevitydude thought it was a compromise to propose that neither set of editors should nominate articles the other set finds notable, which Griswaldo aptly found breathtakingly and unbelievably contrary to WP's purposes and policies. Longevitydude considered that forbidding individuals to define N for themselves was tantamount to disallowing them to have their own interest, and (following Chaos5023's agreement with the others) he defended why WP's interests would be served by its adopting other purposes. (4) In summary, David in DC found this to be explicit denial of WP's purpose, and noted that its combination with undue influence (editors calling others leaders) and unverifiability (e.g., WOP) requires major work to restore WP's standards. (5) The unreliability of GRG and E.HTM has already been proven by prior evidence. (6) OHB's hosting by The International World Record Breakers' Club (recordholders.org) and its disclaimer are evidence it is even less reliable. Analysis: Due to David in DC's often indirect style, most of these claims need no more analysis than drawing out his implications and verifying them in his diffs. His diffs show that Longevitydude indeed recruited for WOP during a widely-seen AFD; made several deeply unencyclopedic proposals; and improperly escalated David in DC's valid source objection that remains unanswered today at Jan's talk. Other assertions have been notably evidenced, such as what I call the stillbirth of WP:WOP (1.7.2[52]); the undue influence and unverifiability (same link plus 1.5 and 1.6.4 passim); and the GRG finding (1.3[40] sublink [1]). David in DC's analysis of OHB reflects consensus at WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing, stable since his last edit 21 Dec, though the reasons for this appear at incidental information 7.1 below. Conclusion: Longevitydude's behavior was contrary to WP's purpose and requires a much larger community treatment of similar behaviors that successfully prunes a walled garden many years in the making. Claims 4.2: Timneu22 found 62.235.160.79 an SPA and David in DC found 74.101.118.239 likely to be Ryoung122 (the "unavailable" party) and Cam46136 to be a tightly focused SPA. Analysis: I largely agreed, flagging the first IP and Cam46136 as SPAs at WT:WOP#No COI found (only SPA, not COI, was indicated). The second IP is also an SPA, but I judged there are a sufficient number of SPAs broadly interpreted that it is unlikely to be Ryoung122; the IP's interests are clearly similar to those of the COI editors but I saw enough style and focus differences to indicate away from Ryoung122 (and, since it was largely not affecting content, I didn't list the IP either). Naturally the full context of WT:WOP#End COI is my present and developing statement on the problem. Conclusion: SPA's, puppets, or drones abound. Claims and analysis 4.3:
Conclusion: In addition to significant supportive coverage of charges against Ryoung122, particularly the apparently hypocritical or oblivious ones, Longevitydude's adoption of similar hypocrisy or obliviousness is also evidenced. JJB 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Claims 4.4: Brendanology misrepresented sources, and maintains a supercentenarian blog used via mirror to source WP. JJB 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Analysis: It appears David in DC uses the phrase "his blog" to mean
Incidental information: The effect on newbies is nonnegligible, because new user Cam46136 immediately was emboldened to post several very poor sources to AFD, in an amateur misunderstanding of adequate sourcing which I must also confess to having indulged in during my first month here. Cam46136's 17 edits to WP were -all- to longevity AFDs, in Dec and Jan, and I quoted an established editor calling him an "obvious sock" at WT:WOP#COI list. Thus, Cam46136 is clearly an instance of new (or sock) editors carrying the water for failed arguments by more active COI editors, and relates to many other charges of unduly influenced editors at 1.5, particularly 1.5.1.4[46]. Conclusion: Brendanology's tone was unjustified given his facts and his mistake (conscious or not) was aggravated by Cam46136; both editors were unduly influenced in the AFD, and there is more significant evidence of Brendanology's unadmitted COI than previously. JJB 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Claims and analysis 4.5: 12.144.5.2 intentionally disregards WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V. This is a very direct and well-supported charge. The following comments should not be regarded as deprecatory of this editor at all, because I believe he has in large part managed his disregard appropriate to the community. 12.144.5.2, who remains a WP-contrarian but occasional editor, took a long time to be weaned of his belief that the spaces after periods and commas (which he eschews) should be respected as a consensus; he also continues to doggedly assert the belief that WP should adjust its OR norms, though (unlike Longevitydude as evidenced above) has ceased to proselytize this novel belief. I regard this persistent IP to be approachable and able to be negotiated with (when he is not silent), and regard his work, when he documents his sources, to be largely compliant with WP's standards (exceptions have been noted, and remedies should certainly address any offenses by managed-COI editors). The problem is, of course, other editors who are emboldened to try to change core policy from within the garden rather than holistically or (like 12.144.5.2) by going off-grid. Claims and analysis 4.6: Sbharris intentionally disregards WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V. This charge too is carried by the linked conversation. Sbharris strikes a middle ground between disinterest and disruption. He clearly disagrees with the policies and hopes for WP's adjustment in that and many other areas through ordinary process, and he is properly patient for that hoped change. IMHO he will continue to edit and interact tolerably to current policy, and he has not been a large content provider in this area, though he has provided significant content to other WP topic areas. My concern is similar to that in the prior paragraph, that his policy disregard is echoed unattractively by other COI editors, in addition to the risk that he will make sourcing judgments against consensus; but he has managed this COI well by all evidence I've seen. Claims and analysis 4.7: Ryoung122 continues chronic disruption of process by elaborating on off-Wiki data; imports 110C's agenda (which is contrary to WP's purposes, "policies, guidelines and norms") into WP; manifests a battleground mentality; and poses significant harm to the project. Yes; David also pithily comments toward remedy proposals in the conclusion of his evidence, particularly, "In the face of apparantly incorrigable, chronic disruption of the project, some form of remediation is mandatory." Conclusion 4.5-7: 12.144.5.2 and Sbharris are editors whose COI is relatively well-managed by contrast, but who may unconsciously stoke the other COI editors' demonstrated antipolicy passions, and this risk should thus be addressed with topic-area solutions. Ryoung122's process contributions suggest to me that he concludes disruption is the only tool remaining to him, and David in DC specifically demands (as do I) specific and comprehensive remedy. JJB 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Sjakkalle[edit]Claims 5.1: Sjakkalle is an uninvolved AFD closer. 76.17.118.157, commenting in wrong section, found the AFD relevant. John J. Bulten nominated 2 articles in one AFD, Sjakkalle closed the AFD as "delete" and deleted one article, Sjakkalle deleted the other article after John J. Bulten's technical request, Sjakkalle declined to overturn the deletion after Ryoung122's request (reading "decision and delete" as "decision to delete"). Ryoung122 made reliability and notability arguments and cited John J. Bulten's self-disclosed background (should be "WND"). Incidental information: I add that Ryoung122 appealed to DRV, that the result was to relist both articles in separate AFDs, and that both relisted AFDs were closed as "delete". Analysis: Straightforward narrative of one incident. My own evidence links at 1.1.5.2[35][17][19], and the IP's style ("Greetings," et al.), indicate that 76.17.118.157 is Ryoung122. I conclude that Ryoung122 did comment lengthily in the wrong place (which supports my links at 1.1.2.1[22][24][18][11] to indicate a pattern of disruption), that Sjakkalle circumspectly admits making a minor deletion lapse corrected promptly upon notification, and that Ryoung122 improperly ("not relevant"ly in Sjakkalle's response to Ryoung122) made an ad hominem argument in the AFD review process (which supports my links at 1.1.1.1[14] et al. to indicate a pattern of incivility). Sjakkalle's response also self-discloses personal unfriendliness to the POV Ryoung122 perceives in John J. Bulten (creationism), and thus proposes dispassion in one's dealings with perceiving it. Particular analysis of Sjakkalle's IP diff suggests to me that Ryoung122 as IP also engaged in identity confusion that may rise to the level of socking; professing knowledge of my opinions without sourcing them; charging me with POV-pushing; comparing me to those who use force to modify government-school curricula; promoting himself as a policy-compliant source; claiming a source consensus supporting his versions of the "longevity myths" article; charging lying and laziness about lack of sourcing (relating to Itsmejudith's opening statement, and possibly to my point that became 1.2.1[37], "Unsourceability"); claiming sources without citing them; promoting GRG; and claiming "2007 ArbCom discussions decided that the GRG was a reliable source" without citing any such decision (I believe he means some noticeboard finding that I recall faintly (though I, like Sjakkalle, could not find one at ArbCom; nor at RSN), and if such finding were extant, it was later essentially reversed per sublink [1] in my miscellaneous evidence link 1.3[40]). He goes on to engage in charging generic misinformation in my AFD nomination; charging me with warring, as evidenced by my term "bolding war" for a then-ongoing edit war (as policy-defined) involving bolding; charging Wikipedia with becoming less encyclopedic and making an OTHERSTUFF argument; and claiming that the AFD articles had a purpose "to show that, in fact, there was coverage (even if not great) worldwide, and that these areas of coverage reflect the state of recordkeeping and national organization 100+ years ago, and that as time goes on, more and more of the world will be covered", which is in short a declaration of intent to promote an unsourced POV and supports my point 1.7.3[11], POV-gardening. Conclusion: Uninvolved closer with testimony supportive to John J. Bulten's and providing additional links, inviting one to draw one's own conclusion. JJB 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Sandstein[edit]Claims 6.1: Ryoung122 casts aspersions without evidence (similarly to ArbCom case ChildofMidnight), edits as battleground during ArbCom request, and makes personal attacks (charging lying, cabal, and POV). Analysis: Ryoung122's charges of lying ("zero sources") relate either to my AFD statement, "without reliable sources" (which would be a misrepresentation of me by deleting "reliable"), or to David in DC's use of the words "zero sources" as a clear expression of dismissive opinion through contextualized exaggeration, as David in DC had just said "There is only one source", quoting it in its entirety. If so, Ryoung122 appears tone-deaf and selective in calling this phrase a lie, and this conclusion is consistent with Ryoung122's description of the incident at 10.II-2 (Ryoung122's evidence contains two II's, so I break it accordingly into (10. followed by) I, II-1.1, II-1.2, II-2, and III). The charges of cabal (echoing my 1.1.1.3[19][9]) and anti-supercentenarian POV (echoing my 1.1 generally) are unsourced and indicate a pattern. David in DC's evidence (paragraphs 3.3.2, 3.3.10) indicates that lack of evidence of cabal is so obvious on reviewing edit histories as not to need a diff, which I affirm on different grounds, in that unsupported charges do not need rebutting via diff, due to unmet burden of proof. All Sandstein's charges of personal attacks and casting aspersions appear to be evidenced, and Sandstein's conclusion of battlegrounding appears met by the entire first sentence of WP:BATTLE, particularly grudges and personal conflicts ("have previously collaborated"). Conclusion: Uninvolved editor inviting a fact-finding that "Ryoung122 cast aspersions without evidence", providing sufficient testimony, and also establishing patterns supported by John J. Bulten's and David in DC's testimony. JJB 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]Claims 7.1: WP:WOP was created as, and may still be, not a true WikiProject. (1) AFD-keep editors at Jan Goossenaerts were vitriolic, cast heat not light (17:45, 9 Nov), and wrote disruptive, angry screeds. The Blade of the Northern Lights [Blade] then discovered that the same editor cluster was active at WP:WOP (21:00, 11 Nov) and commented there that editors disregarded NPOV, COI, and N; they also created an obvious walled garden. (2) Examples of this pervasive problem include: Brendanology's evidence section obscures his valid points by being well-poisoning, inflammatory, divisive, and not consensus-seeking; (3) Brendanology accused Blade of heavily implied cabalism ("please behave"), which failed AGF, cast unevidenced aspersions, and personally attacked ad hominem; (4) Brendanology, aware of Blade's charges, continued by saying that starting an AFD vote with charges of destructive collaboration is not well-poisoning, stated that David in DC's denials strengthen the charge, quotes an unevidenced 2007 ArbCom longevity decision, generically charges ill-tempered politicking, and objects to charges of "'zero' sources" without evidencing the quotation. (5) Ryoung122 posted "enormous reams" to Blade's talk, exculpating himself due to alleged provocation by two antipolicy agendas. Ryoung122 charged Itsmejudith (anonymously), without evidence, with believing "supercentenarians were not notable" and two other N misjudgments; he stated that WP editors admit GRG is reliable and that WP:WOP editors are objective and fair "if fair standards [are] applied". He charged me with religious fanaticism akin to teaching creation in schools, with imposing my alleged fundamentalism on others, and with religious warring for over a year. The remainder of Ryoung122's post is another statement of the two postings at 110C, which Ryoung122 has now retracted. Analysis: (1) Though policy failures at Jan's AFD were generically rather than specifically cited, Blade has evidenced the fact he rapidly made a judgment overlapping well with my own on the evidence he saw, believing it on first impression to be so obvious as not to need citation. Blade then backs this up with specifics that support his first impression as follows. (2) I believe it is appropriate for Brendanology's evidence (see separate analysis below) to begin with bold statements of charges, which only in this forum is not actually well-poisoning as Blade thinks (although point (4) is, and words like "diatribe" and "delusion" are). It is also hard for me to characterize Brendanology's evidence as inflammatory, divisive, or nonconsensus, due to the unique nature of ArbCom evidence postings as opposed to other processes. However, Blade is clearly using this jumping-off point to provide more specifics about behavior similar to what he observed in point (1). (3) Brendanology's failure to evidence charges of cabalism after David in DC asked Ryoung122 for the charges to stop is a very telling fulfillment of Blade's charges, and also evidence of Brendanology's being unduly influenced. (4) Brendanology clearly learned about well-poisoning but not about what it is, because beginning an AFD with ad hominem attacks rather than content arguments is a classic case of the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well". It is so classic that the poison's effect on Brendanology himself is manifest: if denial of a charge strengthens it, nothing will weaken it, indicating that the charge itself and not the evidence is what has taken hold of (poisoned) the proponent's thinking. Brendanology further makes two statements already advised elsewhere, about a nonextant 2007 ArbCom and about "'zero' sources" in that AFD, which instead of relying on evidence rely on Ryoung122's word on both counts, indicating extreme undue influence and extreme reliance on Ryoung122's word, a COI source, alone. The word "zero" was first brought to this twice-nommed AFD by Brendanology, though it may be a misquote of my statement, "Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG." (5) In addition to yet another instance of Ryoung122's broadcasting his uncritial acceptance of the off-Wiki 110C posts, which was retracted, Ryoung122's lengthiness, personal attacks, and uncooperative appeal to "fairness" are clearly supported. Conclusion: Blade is correct about his ability to cut to the heart: he rapidly identified a central problem, not Ryoung122 per se, but the endemic policy failures cooperatively indulged in by WP:WOP members, provably COI editors, and SPAs. He carries this charge generally for Brendanology and Ryoung122, and provides supportive evidence for a pattern, not just of Ryoung122 behavior, but of the conflicted editor set in general. Incidental information: I infer Blade agrees that WP:WOP was stillborn and resurrection is incomplete. Interestingly, while Itsmejudith, David in DC and I have developed policy-compliant proposals on WP:WOP's page, editors like Sbharris and Ryoung122 have largely criticized without providing substantive alternate proposals or editing boldly. This creates a situation in which project guidance appears on its
Claims 7.2: (1) Editors charged sabotage of an expert. (Now pay attention:) Blade then compared COI editors to Moonies (to illustrate similarity of COI). Ryoung122 then stated that Eddie Long compared opponents to Goliath. Ryoung122 then meta-compared Eddie Long to Goliath; Ryoung122 then meta-meta-compared Blade to Eddie Long (all 20:07, 12 Nov at ANI). This last comparison misrepresented Blade's comparison. (2) Editors at the African AFD misrepresented David in DC's position, and Ryoung122 made a borderline legal threat. Analysis: (1) Charges of sabotage clearly refer to those made by DerbyCountyinNZ (reference link) at WT:WOP, and ResidentAnthropologist at ANI. These charges in both cases were unsupported appeals to experience, presented to trump appeals to policy, and in ResidentAnthropologist's case also began with an appeal to consensus that clearly failed and led him to exclamatory defensiveness. Blade's analogy obviously said COI editors had the characteristic of desire to WP:MILL every member of an interest class into WP, against NPOV and N, and he chose Moonies as similar bearers of this characteristic. Ryoung122's analogy said that Blade making that comparison was like Long making a misrepresentative comparison to Goliath. The validity of Ryoung122's analogy depends on the degree to which Blade misrepresents in the same way as Ryoung122 sees Long doing; but Blade's WP:MILL comments, while slightly rhetorically exaggerated ("every"), do not rise to the level of an inversion of David and Goliath. Thus, Ryoung122 misrepresented while accusing Blade of misrepresenting, or, put another way, Ryoung122 compared Blade to a caricature while accusing Blade of comparing Ryoung122 to a caricature; Ryoung122 also compared (BLP) Eddie Long unfavorably, while Blade did not compare the Moonies unfavorably; and, if readers remain undizzied, I should close by meta^3-comparing Ryoung122's misrepresentations to, well, other COI editors' misrepresentations: particularly 1.6.1, 1.6.3-5, 1.6.9.3[52]. (2) Misrepresentation of David in DC refers (I was surprised) only to one edit set of Ryoung122 (reference link), which David in DC immediately reflowed as having created (interruptive) disruptive talk-page chaos. I observe that Ryoung122 misrepresents the phrase "calls me a homophobe ... without powerful reliable sources" as instead "call you out on [making] homophobic remarks" (unqualified, not mentioning sourcing), which is a misreading. Naturally David in DC's repeating a past flareup inappropriately can be considered baiting, I'm disappointed to report; this appears offhand to be the largest lapse of any of the non-COI editors, though David in DC's desire for resolution of the past obviously prompts it. In part 2 of Ryoung122's response, he says that David in DC's characterization of GRG and E.HTM as WP:SPS is "knowingly-false" and that his characterization of OHB as stunningly unreliable is a "put-down". He cites five links about himself (two of which are also about Epstein, maintainer of OHB) to demonstrate GRG is not SPS and/or OHB is not unreliable. He appeals to 2007 ArbCom, which is either unsourced or misrepresentation, to show GRG is reliable; refers unhelpfully to GWR; and closes with several invective adjectives. It appears that David in DC's judgment of GRG as an SPS set of web spreadsheets, in accord with RSN, is within a spectrum of consensus judgments about GRG, unaddressed by Ryoung122's unsourced and sourced appeals; and that David in DC's position (and mine) that OHB freely invites corrections and improvements and is thus no RS is not mitigated by its author having two articles in a journal found by RSN to be "somewhat fringy". After that in my diff, Ryoung122's final comment sequentially charges David in DC with cabalism and maintaining a list of articles to attack since 2007 (aha, perhaps he means my WT:WOP list "#Deletion recommendations", which I began only months ago, and which I and David in DC kept updated with discoveries of old and new AFDs); he cuts and pastes three Google mentions for GRG to affirm its reliability (such links are actually an N argument for GRG not an RS argument for any list of African supercentenarians); and accuses David in DC of libel, which in my judgment is "far across the line" of becoming a legal threat. Thus, while I see one instance of Ryoung122 misrepresenting David in DC's words, and I find myself compelled to admit one lapse on David in DC's part, the more interesting behavior is about 11 counts of Ryoung122 laying charges that are not found in the sources cited or alluded to (or, conversely, believing that sources say what they don't: misrepresentation of people who do agree with him). Conclusion: Ryoung122 failing to accurately report what others are saying is amply evidenced (I think this inability stems partly from lack of desire to learn wikimarkup and partly from the human desire to believe people agree with you when they haven't said so), along with an indiscretion of David in DC and an aspersion cast in an attack characterization made by DerbyCountyinNZ. Claims 7.3: (1) Timneu22's claims 2.1 are largely validated by Blade's contemporaneous observation of the same events (without repeating diffs). (2) Longevitydude's claims 3.2 are bizarre and supportive of Blade's conclusion. Analysis: This is actually Blade's analysis of the other evidence sections, which agrees strongly with my conclusions in the relevant sections above in more detail, conclusions which I made prior to recognizing the application of Blade's comments to them. Thus nothing need be added in this graf. Conclusion: Blade reached largely the same conclusion I made above after reviewing evidence sections 2-3, indicating its validity as an independent judgment. JJB 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Matchups[edit]Incidental information: I have very high regard for the judgment of Matchups in all areas, even in those where we agree to disagree. Claims 8.1: Brendanology was uncivil in edit summaries (citing three mentioning "trash" and four in all caps), used edit summaries infrequently, and (implied) failed to assume good faith. Analysis: This charge is straightforward, as the only question would be whether other editors' behavior necessitates such edit summaries. The talk page discussion and the edits themselves do not appear to warrant such summaries, because the other editors' "trash" edits appear to be in good faith and the all-caps comments appear to be either pleading (two) or directive (two), both of which are inappropriate for summary caps. Certainly the three "trash" edits involved one out of place for a project-technical reason, and two unsourced, but Matchups's reply emphasizes the escalatory nature of the responses. Matchups seems to have carried the burden of proof, and also to have obtained the civility-based response at talk, without mention of the issue recurring. However, the permanence of such civility is in question due to several other evidence links, particularly the discussion at my link 1.6.2.2[45] in which, in one thread 15-29 Oct, Brendanology makes 9 comments containing caps or bold emphasis and at least 4 that I consider attacks or insults. Since Matchups refers to the aggregate of Brendanology's summaries (under 1000 at evidence date), a review is appropriate and shows a disappointing but not excessive amount of blank edits and section-title-only edits, and several all-caps phrases, but primarily in the most recent months, indicating a growing dissatisfaction with other editors. My feeling is that Brendanology sometimes remains civil and sometimes doesn't, and analysis of edit content rather than summaries may indicate further direction. Incidental information: At User talk:Matchups, Brendanology on 22 Dec regards it doubtful whether Jan Goossenaerts had turned 110, seeming to have blissfully forgotten making four comments on a quite well-traveled AFD on that name 4-8 Nov in which he repeatedly recognized Jan had reached age 110. Conclusion: Several suggestions of incivility, aptly responded to on a one-off basis and in the specific, but which appear symptomatic and supportive of other evidence of larger problems. JJB 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Brendanology[edit]Claims 9.1: John J. Bulten [1] intimidated and attempted to convert, [2] threatened without seeking consensus, [3] attempted presenting recent changes suddenly as new consensus against etiquette and warned with only one prior unanswered attempt to propose the change, all against Brendanology. Analysis: See the full-context "bolding-war" talk section at my link 1.6.2.2[45] and 3RR report at 1.6.7.1[38]. I promptly apologized, and reaffirm the apology, for two lapses: making an appeal that included reference to a person's stated age, and naming the wrong article in a user warning.
Claims 9.2: John J. Bulten (1) submitted AFDs in batches of articles with similar criteria (1[1]-[4]), (2) used boilerplate therein, (3) voted on his own AFDs, (4) used boilerplate replies to editors to scare them (4[5]-[7]), all against policy. Analysis: Brendanology links ([1]-[4]) 4 articles I nominated on 5 Dec, my second batch of two; both batches contained articles with similar criteria and partially boilerplated nominations. In this second batch I followed the first-graf boilerplate nomination with an article-specific second-graf source analysis, different for each article, which each also included the bold phrase "Delete as nom". Brendanology links ([5]-[7]) 1 of my 3 identical messages to Jc iindyysgvxc and 2 of my 6 identical messages to DHanson317, who had both voted with article-specific rationales but all with the same reliance on inherent notability, addressed by my boilerplate response. With the burden of proof on him, Brendanology has not indicated any policy that prohibits AFD batching, boilerplate noms, vote grafs distinct from nom grafs, or boilerplate replies (intended so that any editor arriving at any of the AFDs would be aware there were several others in the batch, and so that the similarity rather than the differences in the various votes would be emphasized). I am uncertain how my messages would "scare off" editors; presumably they dissuade editors from continuing to debate, although if so that is part of the consensus-seeking methodology of AFD discussion (if my reasons are valid, dissuasion is proper, and if invalid, they would not be dissuasive to anyone who understands AFD policy, viz., that valid reasons would trump them), nor is there evidence any respondent was harmed or offended at the time. Claims 9.3: [1] John J. Bulten attacked Petervermaelen for boilerplating after doing it himself, indicating hypocrisy and causing confusion and misconception. Analysis: Brendanology links my response to Petervermaelen, who (in the same batch) had voted on 5 AFDs with one boilerplate paragraph that did not address the article but instead his views of my beliefs and AFD motivations. I believed (WP:DUCK) he had been influenced offline by Ryoung122, and said so without naming names, very moderately and constructively I thought, and without boilerplate. I began, "Welcome Peter, I'm going to reply only once to this identical comment you made on 5 AFDs, because you aren't saying anything about any of the articles themselves." I see no attack on a person for boilerplating, unless the bare mention of his acts is an attack, or unless a tone is inferred; I believed Peter's one vote, copied onto 5 AFDs, needed only one response (unlike the article-specific votes of other editors). Thus the related charges have no foundation either, nor is there evidence that anyone was harmed or offended at the time. Claims 9.4: [1] (link identical to 9.2.4[5]) John J. Bulten suggested two editors should stop replying on the same AFD batch, contradicted himself about consensus, stated that AFD subjects' appearing in several other lists was excessive and grounds for deletion, believes he creates WP policy to be followed blindly, and believes that supercentenarians are appropriate for batched deletion without individual consideration. Claims from 9.2-3 are also repeated in slightly different fashion. Analysis: I bypass words like "diatribe" and "delusion". Brendanology repeat-links and describes my response to Jc iindyysgvxc. In particular, indirectly suggesting editors stop replying (even if it were extant, conscious, and inferred) is again part of AFD discussion; describing "established consensus" on one point and "further consensus sought" on another point does not appear contradictory, though perhaps solecistically brief; the statement that a marginally sourced AFD subject appears in seven or more other WP articles appears a valid redundancy-deletion argument from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; I see no appeal to blind followers, and proposing policy and listening for silent and verbal consensus appears to be part of WP's processes, particularly where the relevant WikiProject had not established any consistent policy without my input; and it appears my article-specific vote grafs did not seem to Brendanology to be individual consideration. Incidental information: I considered nominating one article per day, but decided that batching would be much more clearly understood and less likely to be misinterpreted. Claims 9.5: [1] Rejuvenation Research (RejRes), an "established" RS journal, [2] was smeared by John J. Bulten as "unreliable GRG published" to push a POV without determining reliability. Analysis: Brendanology's first link 9.5[1] shows only that SiameseTurtle considers RejRes an RS, in re deletion of an article that did not in fact cite RejRes: hardly an establishment of reliability (I have stated I consider SiameseTurtle to have potentially conflicted interests). 9.5[2] shows that I used the phrase "unreliable RejRes (GRG-authored)" in a different AFD. This was perhaps poor shorthand for "a RejRes article unreliable because the article was GRG-authored" (I also omitted the word "article" in related AFDs), which was an opinion primarily on the reliability of GRG, and secondarily on the likelihood of RejRes adopting GRG's article uncritically. However, even if Brendanology's gloss were correct, the discussion at my miscellaneous link 1.3[40] sublink [1] indicates that GRuban of WP:RSN had previously found RejRes "somewhat fringy", basing my judgment. Brendanology's judgment about reliability and smearing is not supported by the evidence. Incidental information: As noted at WT:WOP, I contribute to Word Ways: The Journal of Recreational Linguistics, a journal long edited by A. Ross Eckler, Jr., who also happens to be a supercentenary researcher. I do not regard many of its articles WP-reliable even for articles about its subject (wordplay), because its practice is to publish material largely as submitted, placing responsibility for errors or omissions on the authors. However, I consider Eckler's published statements on both these pursuits, wordplay and gerontology, very WP-reliable. This experience seems very similar to my understanding of RejRes and backgrounds my statements above. Claims 9.6: [1] John J. Bulten's user subpage list of "Friends" is a disruptive "inappropriate friends network à la Facebook", is inappropriately updated by himself despite saying "add your name here", and can be interpreted as listing allies and canvassing. Analysis: My best guess is that Brendanology first mistakenly believed some 60 editors had self-enrolled as my allies and then felt hurt upon being disabused, thus explaining the charge of inappropriateness. He perhaps also felt I was misrepresenting him as a self-enrollee. Certain charges, namely that a name list constitutes a Spacebook or Myface network, or that the word "friends" improperly connotes "ally" (I infer a form of "meatpuppet"), appear to be misinferences that do not carry the burden of proof. Even if the (passive, solicited) message were compared against (active, unsolicited) inappropriate canvassing, my message seems to pass the classic 4 WP:CANVASS pillars of being limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open, and the attribution of canvassing policy to it appears another misjudgment by Brendanology. Incidental information: This is simply a list of people who have left friendly messages, broadly interpreted, on my talkpage. I believe I have added every single name myself, and I do so primarily to keep up an idiosyncratic archiving and talk-management style. I find Brendanology's objection to how I design my talk page more bemusing than constructive. Claims 9.7: John J. Bulten uncivilly used the word "war". Analysis: Brendanology apparently copied the wrong link, 9.6[1], when 9.1[3] appears intended. At that link I used the word "war" at 18:37, 14 Oct, to describe seven complete bold-revert cycles over the boldfacing of two terms since 22:04, 11 Oct (the last four of those seven cycles occuring within 24 hours, from 19:43, 13 Oct). Umm, I believe this phrasing agrees with guidance at WP:EDITWAR. Reference 1.6.7.1[38]. Short conclusion: No burdens of proof have been carried beyond admited minor lapses. Longer conclusion: At risk of Brendanology taking offense, I believe in stating my speculations that these charges largely constitute unstudied and occasionally studied misinterpretation of my words, compounded by a picture of "User:John J. Bulten" that I reasonably suspect is circulating off-Wiki. My comments to Petervermaelen obliquely but precisely explain what I believe is happening. Although ArbCom is presumably uninterested in discussions at WOP, 110C, et al., and I am well-familiar with the vagaries of being misunderstood in controversial-opinion fora, I believe WP should not abide comments reasonably attributable half to off-Wiki stoking and half to lack of inclination to hear and understand. When one perceives having done no wrong or negligible wrong, apology can only go so far before it becomes "I'm sorry you haven't solved your problems you have with my existence". One can choose between tiptoeing and bluntness. Here I believe in adopting the latter and taking up two more lines of text to say straight and bold: Take a word to the wise: pick your battles wisely. This is a nonstarter. I'm sorry that you've been hanging out with editors who have not followed policy, but now's the time to be a quick learner. JJB 09:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:RFAR/G#Workshop, "the Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence." Also, COI refers to off-wiki relationships related to one's on-wiki topic editing, it has nothing to do with whether or not one is a party to an ArbCom case. As a party I have the same limitations as all other parties, and I have always honored those limitations. JJB 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Ryoung122 by JJB[edit]Evidence of impersonation at WOP or 100C[edit]Incidental information: For my first point of analysis, it is necessary to state that I discovered today that someone is impersonating me on either 110C or WOP or both, as indicated by Ryoung122's claim of two postings to one of those two chatsites, probably the former (1, 2). I suppose I am honored to have been impersonated (imitation being flattery and all), although the chatsite operator(s) (and WP editors) should probably take note of the risk of further off-Wiki disruption of this WP process by the impostor. I merely note, for review by others, the stylistic differences from myself such as the party's use of such nonwords as "shes" and "pursecuting", and the party's insistence on such fundamentalism as "I'm standing up for the Bible" while I have been careful in my WP account to stick with neutral presentation of all POVs irrespective of my own beliefs about the Bible. Anyway, enough on that, it takes time away from real evidence I am preparing to post. JJB 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Ryoung122 analysis[edit]Claims 10.I-III: Someone with the online name "JJB" made two posts on a blacklisted chatsite, which I believe I can escape summarizing on the grounds that they are outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction and have been retracted at Ryoung122's talk without anything replacing them. Oh, and Sandstein, John J. Bulten, and David in DC lied intentionally in re an AFD; David in DC speaks extraneously, has COI, teamed with John J. Bulten on AFDs, misstates source reliability and availability, and ignores evidence. Analysis: Zero diff-supported claims. Not one. Categorical denial (made hereby) suffices to carry my burden of rebuttal. Ryoung122's views on WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:V must be understood before they can be responded to. I note in passing that Ryoung122 speaks of editors' inability to distinguish "one" from "zero" when he himself is unable to see that David in DC described the article's one source as "one source" (see analysis of Sandstein); he spends precious screenfuls of evidence before he gets around to accusing David in DC of speaking extraneously; he believes it an extreme cabal that a public list of deletion discussions at WT:WOP whereby one editor can quickly inform a second via watchlist that a new AFD has occurred, and privately bemoans just that to his list of hundreds of receptive listeners, telling them just what to do about it; and he sees no evidence against his view that David in DC ignores all evidence. Some call this projection. Incidental information: David in DC answered a similar post, res ipsa loquitur, to which I reply, verbum sat. Conclusion: Epic fail, followed by denial. Antipolicy coping mechanism may follow. JJB 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Itsmejudith[edit]Claims and Analysis 11.1-31:
Overall analysis: Sorting of these analyses into categories is intended to be combined with sorting the other analyses into proposed findings of fact relating to Ryoung122. Conclusion: While agreeing to disagree on certain points, Itsmejudith provides much evidence of Ryoung122's behavior supportive to that of other editors, and some evidence of the endemic and insidious nature of longevity-related policy violation that will be broken by the just resolution of this case. JJB 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC) ADD: Itsmejudith has just added a late section with two off-wiki links suggesting serious canvassing and the possibility of more such links. While these are very interesting reading, my first take is to think the case would be cleaner without them as "evidence", because of the potential for Itsmejudith to be charged with bending rules or sudden reaction. Certainly, if I discovered an off-wiki statement about myself that I could perceive as a threat, I'd want ArbCom to know; but based on #Clarify validity of self-identification I have been very careful to keep wiki and off-wiki ID's separate. Private evidence may be, or have been, indicated. So, while I can fully understand the rationale for these bold edits, there is also an argument for withdrawing them as well. I do not think these edits should be placed in the position of "game-changer", and am interested in other views. As to their content, I think it largely confirms charges already made in evidence and that should, for transparency purposes, be carried by that evidence; particularly, TML's opening statement here is quite vindicated. However, thus far ArbCom has apparently not assigned the same weight as I have to such evidence, and that discussion is still pending. JJB 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
|
The following reflects my closing personal judgment about the roles of all named "parties" in the case, using the word "party" noncontroversially in the loosest sense as per the questions section above. Based on my initial statement at case talk:
Total 42. I am proforma sending immediate notifications to those on this list (12) not listed as notified at case filing time (22) and not listed separately as RFA commenters (4) or evidence providers (4): apologies to anyone who was omitted or discussed without getting notified sooner. JJB 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE, INAPPROPRIATE EDITING BY JJBULTEN.
And "all caps" are for attention. Words don't "shout."Ryoung122 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: Typing in All caps on the Internet. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Does the recreation of this page, at this juncture, seem somewhat pointy? David in DC (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1. What's POINTY is that Blade of Northern Lights and David in DC decided that this was something that warranted their attention, sort of like playing "whack a mole."
2. In truth, this was complete surprise to me that Plyjacks decided to re-create this article. Had I planned it, I certainly wouldn't have done so at this point in time, with an open ArbCom discussion.
Ryoung122 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was this article deleted?
As requested in the preamble to the article, it was stated that if one wanted to keep the article, one had to add {hold it} and put their comment.
I did so. IMMEDIATELY afterwards the article and my comment were deleted in complete contravention to Wikipedia policy on {hold it}.
No debate or discussion were allowed. This is one of the most appalling cases of Wikipedia censorship and intellectual thuggery I have observed on Wikipedia. Absolutely disgraceful! cam46136 Cam46136 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)cam46136— Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
However, please don't get the one thing mixed up with the other. Young IS a world authority in this area. AND may not be "notable" enough for a WP BLP, by WP's criteria. Just accept the two facts, which are not mutually exclusive, or even contradictory. SBHarris 06:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Per request 8 above, I intend to discuss with ArbCom my concerns about Kirill Lokshin's diffs about me, starting with the concern that they do not appear to demonstrate sanctionable behavior. In support of this, David in DC stated that even my contingent voluntary ban was overbroad (though his edit summary implied he did not consider this a full answer to my question), and Itsmejudith said his statement included "very sensible points" (Shell Kinney also said, prior to these proposals, that even blocking would be "such an extreme step", but perhaps this meant "extreme for an injunction"). On the other hand, Kirill Lokshin stated not being convinced "the value of JJB's continued participation in the project justifies the administrator time" in certain cases, SirFozzie agreed, and Newyorkbrad doesn't believe the diffs constitute "isolated instances". While I recognize ArbCom advises that remedies may seem deceptively lenient or stringent, the two involved editors quoted do echo my concern of there being an unprecedented disconnect between the diffs and any penalty (let alone other concerns).
I have analyzed the diffs here, including a "writing for the enemy" analysis of a hypothetical in which these edits had been committed by a GRG member and discovered by me during my former topic review. If these edits result in any sanction in the final decision (even if ArbCom mentions my voluntary ban, which is to agree formally with the need for me to be penalized rather than to use ArbCom's ever-eloquent silence to accomplish its ends), the subtext of such sanction would invite various inferences, justified or not, from any third party. (My first draft of this paragraph contained several such misinferences, but it appears unnecessary to list them all at this instant.)
My conclusion on diff review is that a one-year ban is proposed based upon one set of reverts not sanctioned as warring, one additional small revert, one ambiguous edit summary, one consensus-seeking list of topic-area editors to achieve community resolution of a consensus-admitted problem, one list of editors in one's own evidence presentation, one instance of batching deletion nominations found later to be against consensus (the two other instances were with consensus: note, 20 diffs referred to only 3 events), and one instance of copying unimpeached science sources from one article to another (with another editor's generic views about this). A key potential third-party misinference is that these behaviors in themselves might be considered sanctionable suddenly and with the most extreme penalty, even though none of them are against policy without further evidence that any of them constituted sustained disruption in some other way. This is, of course, the chilling effect: if some penalty were sustained, the misinference would weaken editor boldness across the board, by dissuading editors from WP-building behaviors due to fear that they might be sanctionable even as they build the encyclopedia in good faith.
In short, the quoted arbitrator comments speak very poorly of my continued project involvement, and I wish to clear my name of these charges (or, alternatively, to have them laid out plainly and clearly for the benefit of third parties). I have, as stated, abandoned all other purposes for this arbitration, insofar as they now appear to be against consensus. The wise man seeks out criticism. Accordingly, please comment on my analysis linked above. JJB 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Apologies: To continue discussion, would apology help anything? I could've handled reversion and the edit summary better, and I could apologize to Ryoung122 and NickOrnstein; but Ryoung122 has never revisited the ANI outcome on the reversion, and NickOrnstein has never even expressed offense. Could I have handled the community-recognized COI problem better (after repeated COIN findings of not just COI itself but COI with rampant abuses), other than by my compiling self-identified gerontology advocacy relationships into a WikiProject list, while naming COI-handling options for group discussion to which I invited all? I can apologize generically for any overbreadth to my statements "End COI" (which was always intended as shorthand for "End COI abuse") and "Evidence indicates ...", but my phrasing was never objected to in a long good-faith consensus discussion. Could I have done better than by nominating deletions while fully advising the WikiProject after patiently compiling and following prior examples and outcomes? It would seem a bit bending over backwards to apologize to Ryoung122 for not notifying him personally while assuming he was watching the WikiProject; but I suppose I could've noticed his absence in some AFDs and let him know about them, if that seems to ArbCom it would've been better. Could I have done better with my evidence, to protect it against charges of battlegrounding, than by grouping it by activity, with lists of editors underneath? All I can tell about the "battleground" charge is my guess that maybe I'm being charged with not assuming good faith about editors or groups: though surely simply listing editors and behaviors in an evidence section is not battlegrounding in itself, and no one was offended by that. Could I have done better than by adding science sources to an article in good faith? I suppose I could apologize to Itsmejudith for us never yet having had a discussion toward an agreement on FRINGE, RNPOV, ONEWAY, etc.; but our discussion has always been amicable, I've let her edits almost all stand, and none of this is ban-worthy. In short, my determining whom I have offended and how I have broken policy sustainedly, in ArbCom's view, is central to this section's discussion, as I always stand ready to apologize and rectify problems brought to me directly (as I have identified my own lapses in my analyses); but it's unclear whether an apology would suffice to address the problems ArbCom speaks about only indirectly. So, well, I'm sorry I don't see it yet. JJB 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Per invitation: ArbCom should reject Kirill Lokshin's proposed finding 5 and remedy 3 in any form: I say this as a former forum admin, familiar with privately discussing, among other admins, both our problematic contributors and how our admin responses would be viewed publicly. I believe 10 minutes' consideration will be worth your time. First, rejecting these sanctions greatly reduces risk to ArbCom's goodwill, which would otherwise arise from third-party misinferences invited by the text and subtext of these sanctions. ArbCom is certainly interested in #Avoiding apparent impropriety by preventing circumstances in which ArbCom's decision might be colorable as sustaining false inferences. Ordinarily I would (as above) withhold these statements as being risks of which ArbCom is presumably already well-aware, but I trust that under the protection of my being invited to list disagreements, ArbCom welcomes my speaking freely to ensure the risks are well-aired in a proper forum. Specifically, adoption would permit editors to misinfer:
These misinferences would create a chilling effect against various healthy behaviors appropriate to smooth project function. Particularly, editors would reasonably fear entering arbitration due to the risk of sudden shock, unequal discussion time, and undue case refocus, as well as due to the risk of ban without prior lesser sanction, without prior admin warning, and without evidence of extreme behavior. (By contrast, ArbCom's silence on the proposed sanctions creates no such chilling effect, nor risk to ArbCom's reputation and goodwill: the only risk that might attach to silence would be if some truly sanctionable behavior went unsanctioned, a risk assessment that depends wholly on the behavior truly being sanctionable, which is discussed below.) Accordingly, all forms of the proposed sanctions should be rejected, because any form of sanction based on these proposals would subtextually indicate that ArbCom decisions may freely be built from unpresented evidence and (because even a lesser sanction here would countenance the ban proposal) that such unvetted decisions may freely include site bans, since they have been previously countenanced.
In addition to these sanctions creating unnecessary risk for ArbCom, other reasons for rejection of sanctions include:
I trust my defense has been appropriate. Thank you for your patience. I have nothing more to say as I await ArbCom's application of the principles of Justice. JJB 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Sincere thanks. JJB 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)